Myanmar has been a nexus of cultural and material exchange for thousands of years. The country’s coasts and river valleys have been inhabited since prehistoric times, and during most of the 1st millennium CE the overland trade route between China and India passed through Myanmar’s borders. Merchant ships from India, Sri Lanka, and even farther west converged on its ports, some of which also were the termini of the portage routes from the Gulf of Thailand across the narrow Isthmus of Kra on the Malay Peninsula. Thus, Myanmar has long served as the western gateway of mainland Southeast Asia.

The Indian merchants brought with them not only precious cargoes but also their religious, political, and legal ideas; within just a few decades after the first of these merchants arrived, Indian cultural traditions had remolded indigenous society, thought, and arts and crafts. Yet important components of Myanmar’s local ways were retained, in synthesis with Indian culture. Surrounded on three sides by mountains and on the fourth by the sea, Myanmar always has been somewhat isolated; as a consequence, its cultures and peoples have remained distinct in spite of the many Indian influences and in spite of its close affinity with the cultures of the other countries of Southeast Asia.

Myanmar was one of the first areas in Southeast Asia to receive Buddhism, and by the 11th century it had become the centre of the Theravada Buddhist practice. The religion was patronized by the country’s leadership, and it became the ideological foundation of the Myanmar state that blossomed at Pagan on the dry central plains.

The origins of civilization in Myanmar

The first human settlers in Myanmar appeared in the central plain some 11,000 years ago. Little is known of these people except that they were a Paleolithic culture, using stone and fossilized-wood tools that have been labeled Anyathian, from Anyatha (another term for Upper Burma). A discovery in 1969, by workers from the government’s Department of Archaeology, of some cave paintings and stone tools in the eastern part of Shan state shows that that area too had Paleolithic as well as early Neolithic (about 10,000 years ago) settlements, both of which bore similarities to the Hoabinhian culture, which was widespread in the rest of Southeast Asia from about 13,000 to about 4,000 BCE. Crude shards and ring stones found at the site appear to have been attached to stonecutting tools to make them more suitable for digging. The woodcutting tools in the find probably were used to clear patches of forest for cultivation, which would indicate that the shift from gathering to agriculture had already begun.

The Pyu state

Between the 1st century BCE and the 9th century CE, speakers of Tibeto-Burman languages known as the Pyu established city-kingdoms in Myanmar at Binnaka, Mongamo, Shri Kshetra, and Halingyi. At the time, a long-standing trade route between China and India passed through northern Myanmar and then across the Chindwin River valley to the west. In CE 97 and 121, Roman embassies to China chose this overland route through Myanmar for their journey. The Pyu, however, provided an alternative route down the Irrawaddy to their capital city, Shri Kshetra, at the northern edge of the delta. From there, the route extended by sea westward to India and eastward to insular Southeast Asia, where the China trade connected with the portage routes on the peninsula and with maritime routes within the archipelago. Chinese historical records noted that the Pyu claimed sovereignty over 18 kingdoms, many of them in the southern portions of Myanmar.

The same Chinese records emphasized the humane nature of Pyu government and the elegance and grace of Pyu life. Fetters, chains, and prisons were evidently unknown, and punishment for criminals was a few strokes with a whip. The men, dressed in blue, wore gold ornaments on their hats, and the women wore jewels in their hair. The Pyu lived in houses built of timber and roofed with tiles of lead and tin; they used golden knives and utensils and were surrounded by art objects of gold, green glass, jade, and crystal. Parts of the city walls, the palace, and the monasteries were built of glazed brick. The Pyu also appear to have been Buddhists of the Sarvastivada school. Their architects may have developed the vaulted temple, which later found its greatest expression at Pagan during its golden age, from the 11th to the 14th century. Pyu sons and daughters were disciplined and educated in monasteries or convents as novices. In the 7th century the Pyu shifted their capital northward to Halingyi in the dry zone, leaving Shri Kshetra as a secondary centre to oversee trade.

The Mon

To the south of the Pyu lived the Mon, who were speakers of an Austroasiatic language. The Mon were closely related to the Khmer, who lived to the east of the Mon in what is now Cambodia. The capital of the Mon probably was the port of Thaton, which was located northwest of the mouth of the Salween River and not far from the portage routes of the Malay Peninsula; through this window to the sea the Mon saw India, in its full glory, under the Gupta dynasty (early 4th to late 6th century CE). Earlier, in the 3rd century BCE, the great Mauryan emperor Ashoka apparently had sent a mission of Buddhist monks to a place called Suvarnabhumi (the Golden Land), which is now thought to have been in the Mon region of the Isthmus of Kra. The ancient monastic settlement of Kelasa, situated near Thaton in southern Myanmar and claimed by Burmese and Mon chronicles to have been founded by Ashoka’s missionaries, was mentioned in early Sinhalese records as being represented at a great religious ceremony held in Sri Lanka in the 2nd century BCE.

With the expansion of Indian commerce in Southeast Asia between the 1st and 4th centuries CE, Thaton’s prosperity and importance increased. Indian merchants and seamen went to Thaton as traders rather than as conquerors or colonists. The number of Indians was never great, and their settlements were of a commercial, not military, nature. As a result, Indian culture was readily accepted by the Mon.

However, the Mon culture was not displaced by Indian ways; the Mon blended the old with the new. They integrated many of their own beliefs into those of Theravada Buddhism, which arrived in Southeast Asia already replete with local South Asian beliefs. The power and prestige of the Mon kingship were enhanced by the notions of kingship found in India. The Mon developed a new art of sculpture by blending indigenous traditions with Gupta conventions of iconography. They built stupas (Buddhist ceremonial mounds) according to Indian models, which were adapted to Mon aesthetic tastes. The Mon subsequently became one of the most culturally advanced peoples in Southeast Asia. They assumed the role of teachers to their neighbours, spreading Theravada Buddhism and their new culture over the entire region.

The Mon centre eventually shifted to Bago (Pegu), located on the Bago River, about 50 miles (80 km) northeast of present-day Yangon (Rangoon). From there the Mon were able to control the trade of southern Myanmar.

The kingdom of Pagan (849–c. 1300)

The advent of the Burmans at Pagan

Another group of Tibeto-Burman speakers, the Burmans, also had become established in the northern dry zone. They were centred on the small settlement of Pagan on the Irrawaddy River. By the mid-9th century, Pagan had emerged as the capital of a powerful kingdom that would unify Myanmar and inaugurate the Burman domination of the country that has continued to the present day.

During the 8th and 9th centuries the kingdom of Nanzhao became the dominant power in southwestern China; it was populated by speakers of Lolo (or Yi), a Tibeto-Burman language. Nanzhao mounted a series of raids on the cities of mainland Southeast Asia in the early decades of the 9th century and even captured Hanoi in 861. The Mon and Khmer cities held firm, but the Pyu capital of Halingyi fell. The Burmans moved into this political vacuum, establishing Pagan as their capital city in 849.

By that time the Mon apparently had become supreme in southern Myanmar. They may have occupied the whole of the region and controlled the port of Pathein (Bassein) in the west and the city of Bago in the centre. They could have stepped into the void caused by the destruction of the Pyu kingdom, but their power was linked to the trade of southern Myanmar and not with the agrarian-based economy of northern Myanmar.

The unification of Myanmar

Nanzhao acted as a buffer against Chinese power to the north and allowed the infant Burman kingdom to grow. The Burmans learned much from the Pyu, but they were still cut off from the trade revenues of southern Myanmar. Theravada Buddhism had disappeared from India, and in its place were Mahayana Buddhism and a resurgent Hinduism.

In 1044 Anawrahta came to the throne at Pagan and began the unification process in Myanmar that would recur in cyclic fashion until the British conquered the country in 1886. Anawrahta first strengthened his defenses on the north—the “front door” of Myanmar—and created alliances through marriage with the neighbouring Shan to the east. He then harnessed the economic resources of northern Myanmar by repairing old irrigation works and building new ones. Finally, he declared himself the champion of Theravada Buddhism and used that ideology to justify his conquest of southern Myanmar, which was accomplished with the defeat of the Mon city of Thaton in 1057.

Thus, by the mid-11th century the core of present-day Myanmar had been united into a single kingdom centred at Pagan, and Myanmar’s longest-surviving dynasty had been established. Anawrahta’s work was continued by his great commander Kyanzittha (ruled 1084–c. 1112) and by another great ruler, Alaungsithu (ruled c. 1112–c. 1167). Pagan’s consolidation of the Irrawaddy valley southward to the ports of southern Myanmar divided most of mainland Southeast Asia into two great empires, Khmer and Burman. Anawrahta’s dynasty of kings lasted until the 13th century. By that time, their great temples had been built, and their message of Theravada Buddhism had been carried not only to the Shan but also to the Khmer.

Centuries of temple building and of donations of land and manpower to the tax-exempt sangha (monkhood), however, had diverted many of the state’s most valuable resources. Yet the legitimacy of state and society depended on continued patronage of the sangha. As a result, Pagan had become weakened by the end of the 13th century, precisely when a threat arose from the Mongols of Central Asia. Pagan had lost its northern buffer in the early 1250s when Nanzhao was destroyed and subjugated by the Mongols under Kublai Khan. The Mongols demanded submission by and tribute from Pagan, which refused to comply. It is not clear that the Mongol armies actually reached Pagan, but by 1300 Pagan no longer was the centre of power in Myanmar.

Pagan state and society

Pagan was a fabulous kingdom even to its contemporaries; although he did not visit it, the 13th–14th-century Venetian traveler Marco Polo was impressed by the tales of its splendour that were recounted to him. By the time of its conquest, Pagan had an estimated 3,000 to 4,000 temples and monasteries. Hundreds of these still stand today and testify to the prosperity of its people and the richness of its culture. The conquest of the Mon kingdom of Thaton was the foundation of both Pagan’s economy and its culture, for it delivered into Burman hands all the ports of the country and the core of artisans who built Pagan’s magnificent temples. These artisans were paid in wages of gold and silver, as well as in kind (food, horses, and elephants). Their clothing, shelter, health, comfort, and safety were the responsibility of their employers (as evidenced by details provided in contemporaneous inscriptions).

The Mon craftsmen, artisans, artists, architects, goldsmiths, and wood-carvers who were captured at Thaton and taken to Pagan taught their skills and arts to the Burmans. Mon monks and scholars taught the Burmans the sacred Pali language and the Buddhist scriptures, and the Burmans soon became scholars themselves, making Pagan the centre of Theravada learning. Some of their religious commentaries came to be accepted as part of the Pali canon by other Theravada countries. The women of Pagan also took part in these activities, particularly in the building and endowment of temples and monasteries.

While the people of Pagan made Buddhism their way of life, they retained many indigenous and other unorthodox beliefs. The result was a unique blend of principles that persisted for generations as the foundation of religion, government, and society in Myanmar.

Myanmar from the end of Pagan to 1885

The first Ava kingdom, 1364–1527

After the decline of Pagan as a major political force, small centres of power emerged by the first decade of the 14th century from polities that once had been under Pagan suzerainty. The political situation remained fragmented, however, until one of these centres, Ava, became the seat of authority in 1364. Ava was located in the northern Irrawaddy valley at the entrance to the rice-producing region of Kyaukse, near present-day Mandalay. The kings of Ava resurrected the traditions of Pagan, encouraging scholarship and learning and making the period a great age of Burmese literature. Without a northern buffer, however, they could not control the coasts for any length of time and were thus deprived of shipping revenues.

Also following Pagan’s fall from political authority, the Mon reestablished themselves at Bago, and by the 15th century they were experiencing their own golden age under leaders such as Dhammazedi (ruled 1472–92). Bago became a major centre of Theravada scholarship and of commerce in Southeast Asia, attributes that protected it from conquest. Ava, however, was vulnerable; it was sacked in 1527 by the Shan, who had been moving southward down the Irrawaddy and Chao Phraya valleys since the destruction of Nanzhao several decades earlier. Refugees from Ava fled south to Toungoo, a city on the Sittang River that had been a seat of Pagan and Ava authority.

The Toungoo dynasty, 1531–1752

The Toungoo dynasty, although considered by some to have been founded by King Minkyinyo (ruled 1485–1531), was inarguably solidified by his successor Tabinshwehti (ruled 1531–50). By the time Tabinshwehti took power, the new kingdom had become strong enough to wrest control of northern Myanmar from the Shan and southern Myanmar from the Mon. In 1511 the great trading entrepôt of Malacca (now Melaka) on the Malay Peninsula was conquered by the Portuguese, which led to a renewal of interest in trade in Myanmar’s coastal waters. Tabinshwehti transferred his capital southward to Bago in order to tap this commercial potential, and he attempted to unite Burmans, Mon, and Shan into a single state. He died in 1550, however, and was succeeded by his brother-in-law, Bayinnaung (ruled 1551–81).

Meanwhile, the Shan in the Chao Phraya valley had consolidated their power under the Tai kingdom of Ayutthaya (Ayudhia, Ayudhya), at the time known regionally as Siam. Like the Burmans, the Shan recognized the potential value of controlling the renewed commercial activity in the area; Ayutthaya and Bago thus became rivals. In addition, the Ming-dynasty Chinese were active in Southeast Asian waters during the 14th and 15th centuries, further stimulating economic growth—and competition—in the region.

Bayinnaung twice marched on Ayutthaya and had conquered the entire Chao Phraya valley by 1569, using Portuguese mercenaries and Portuguese cannon to accomplish his goals. Bayinnaung’s wars exhausted Myanmar’s resources, however, and after his death the kingdom began to break up. Manipur—a Hindu princely state to the northwest of Myanmar (now in India) that had been subjugated in 1560—declared itself independent, and Ayutthaya also regained its independence. Toungoo, joined by forces from the Rakhine (Arakan) region, proceeded to ravage Bago. When the Portuguese subsequently founded a small centre of power at Syriam, on the Bago River across from the site of present-day Yangon, the rulers of Toungoo decided to return to the predictability, security, and comfort of the agrarian dry zone of northern Myanmar.

By the end of the 16th century, Ava had been resurrected and the second Ava dynasty established, and by 1613 Bayinnaung’s grandson Anaukpetlun had reunited Myanmar. Anaukpetlun’s successor, Thalun, reestablished the principles of the Myanmar state created half a millennium earlier at Pagan. Heavy religious expenditures, however, weakened Ava politically, much as they had done in Pagan. In the meantime, southern Myanmar had been rejuvenated by the new commercial activity spurred by the British and the Dutch. Bago had grown stronger while Ava was preoccupied with reviving the northern region. Finally, encouraged by the French in India, Bago rose in rebellion. Assailed internally as well as externally, Ava—and the Toungoo dynasty—fell in 1752.

The Alaungpaya dynasty, 1752–1885

It was soon apparent that with the sacking of Ava only the centre of power had been destroyed, not the system or the wherewithal for power; before the year had ended, a popular Burman leader, Alaungpaya (ruled 1752–60), had driven Bago’s forces out of northern Myanmar, regained the Shan states, and established the Alaungpaya (also called Konbaung) dynasty. By 1759 he also had regained Manipur and defeated Bago. The Siamese became alarmed and attempted to rouse the Shan chiefs to rebel. In the south, Alaungpaya overtook Tenasserim, the site of the old portage kingdoms, and invaded Siamese territory. Although Alaungpaya’s invasion failed and he himself died during the retreat in 1760, the people and rulers of Myanmar now felt that, unless the Siamese were conquered, the coastal cities of southern Myanmar could not be retained. Alaungpaya’s son Hsinbyushin (ruled 1763–76) sent his armies into Siam in 1766, and they captured Ayutthaya in 1767. China, agitated by the growing power of Myanmar, invaded the country four times during the period 1766–69, but without success.

Myanmar then conquered Rakhine and occupied the princely state of Assam to the northwest of Manipur, thus coming face to face with British power in India. The result was the First Anglo-Burmese War (1824–26), in which the Siamese fought on the British side. Myanmar eventually had to sue for peace and relinquish Assam, Manipur, Rakhine, and Tenasserim.

The Second Anglo-Burmese War (1852) was provoked by the British, who wanted access to the teak forests in and around Bago and also wanted to secure the gap in their coastline stretching from Calcutta (Kolkata) to Singapore; it resulted in the British annexation of Bago province, which they renamed Lower Burma. As the British became increasingly interested in the legendary trade with China through its back door—as well as in the teak, oil, and rubies of northern Myanmar—they waited for a suitable pretext to attack. In 1885 Britain declared war on Myanmar for the third and final time. To meet the criticism of this action that arose in Parliament, the British government gave the excuses that the last independent king of Myanmar, Thibaw (ruled 1878–85), was a tyrant and that he was conspiring to give France greater influence over the country. Neither of these charges seems to have had much foundation.

The administration of dynastic Myanmar

During Myanmar’s dynastic era, the king was the chief executive and the final court of appeal, but there were checks on his power. He could not make laws, only issue administrative edicts that might or might not be upheld after his death. Custom was a strong and recognized source for proper behaviour, along with codified bodies of civil and criminal law called, respectively, the Dammathat and the Rajathat.

The king, as the head of state and the patron of Buddhism, was expected to be both a conqueror and one who renounced the world. Buddhist monks were formally organized and headed by a patriarch who, although appointed by the king, sometimes proved to be the king’s sternest critic. Although monks technically were supposed to remain outside the sphere of politics, they gave sanctuary to political exiles. Monasteries also served as schools for boys, and monks educated the people and molded public opinion regarding the state and the king. Because the state and the monkhood owned virtually all the productive land in Myanmar, there were no landed hereditary nobles who could weaken the power of the state. The king’s officials were appointed, and their appointments could lapse with the king’s death.

A council called the Hluttaw, or Hlutdaw (“Place of Release”), was the centre of government. It had several integrated functions—including fiscal, executive, and judicial responsibilities—and it was the final court of appeal; in theory and often in practice the king presided over its deliberations. All proclamations and appointments that were made by the king became valid only when orders giving effect to them were issued by the Hluttaw.

Every province had a governor, to whom were delegated certain powers by the Hluttaw. There always was a right of appeal against decisions of the governor to the Hluttaw. Local government was in the hands of hereditary headmen, who were advised by village elders. The position of the headman was officially confirmed by the king.

The British in Burma, 1885–1948

The third of the Anglo-Burmese Wars lasted less than two weeks during November 1885, with the British taking Mandalay, which had become the capital of northern Myanmar in 1857, with remarkable alacrity. The hopelessly outmatched royal troops surrendered quickly, although armed resistance continued for several years. The people of Myanmar believed that the British aim was merely to replace King Thibaw with a prince who had been sheltered and groomed in India for the throne. This did not come to pass, however, as the British finally decided not only to annex all of northern Myanmar (which they called Upper Burma) as a colony but also to make the whole country a province of India (effective Jan. 1, 1886). Rangoon (now Yangon) became the capital of the province, after having been the capital of British Lower Burma.

The initial impact of colonialism

The chain of events following the Third Anglo-Burmese War dealt a bitter blow to Myanmar. The loss of independence was painful enough; worse still were the British decisions to eliminate the monarchy—in the process sending Thibaw into exile—and to detach the government from religious affairs, thus depriving the sangha (monkhood) of its traditional status and official patronage. Moreover, the British eliminated the office of the patriarch of the Buddhist clergy. The demise of the monarchy and the monkhood, the twin pillars of the society of Myanmar, was perhaps the most devastating aspect of the colonial period.

Many refused to accept the British victory and resorted to guerrilla warfare against the British army of occupation. The guerrillas were led mainly by former officers of the disbanded royal army, former officials (including village headmen), and royal princes, and they considered themselves to be royal soldiers still fighting the Third Anglo-Burmese War. To the British, however, the war had ended legally with the annexation of the kingdom; those opposing them, therefore, were considered rebels and bandits. For the next five years the British military officers acted as both judge and jury in dealing with captured guerrillas. Villagers who aided the rebels also were sternly punished. British troops carried out mass executions and committed other atrocities.

As the guerrillas fought on, the British adopted a “strategic hamlet” strategy, whereby villages were burned and families who had supplied villages with their headmen were uprooted from their homes and sent away to Lower Burma (which had been under British control since the Second Anglo-Burmese War). Strangers loyal to the colonial government were appointed as headmen for the new villages established by the British. The guerrillas resorted to desperate measures against the new village officials. By 1890, however, with more than 30,000 British and Indian troops engaged in the campaign, the military part of the struggle was over.

The religious dilemma

The colonial period was one of relative civil order, but it also was one of great social disintegration. Chief among the reasons for this was the British-imposed separation of the sangha and the state. The British did not wish to touch the issue of religion—given their experience in India that had led to the Indian Mutiny beginning in 1857—and thus they were unwilling to patronize Burmese Buddhism as the monarchy had done.

Under the monarchy, the monkhood and the state had shared a symbiotic relationship. Royal patronage of Burmese Buddhism had included both financial and moral support, which had extended legitimacy and authority to the religious institution. The king had had the right to appoint the patriarch, who exercised supervision and discipline among the ranks of the clergy. In addition, the king had been given the right to attach two royal officials to the patriarch: a commissioner of ecclesiastical lands and an ecclesiastical censor. The duty of the land commissioner had been to see that ecclesiastical lands were exempted from payment of taxes, at the same time ensuring that false and illegal endowments did not escape taxation. The duty of the censor had been to maintain a register of monks, which had given the king indirect control over the clergy. The power to defrock a wayward monk had rested largely with the patriarch, but the same result could be achieved if the king declared the monk to be impure, which was one of the king’s prerogatives. This arrangement was designed to prevent the abuse of the exemptions granted to the clergy.

The British refusal to heed a plea by the clergy and religious elders to continue the traditional relationship between the monkhood and the state resulted in the decline of the sangha and its ability to instill discipline in the clergy. This in turn lowered the prestige of the clergy and contributed to the rise of secular education and of a new class of teachers, depriving the sangha of one of its primary roles. Added to this, the colonial government of India founded secular schools teaching in both English and Burmese and encouraged foreign Christian missions to found schools by offering them financial assistance. Many mission schools were founded; parents were compelled to send their children to these schools, as there were no realistic alternatives. The teachers were missionaries, and the lessons they gave were marked by repeated criticism of Buddhism and its culture. In the government schools the first teachers, British and Indian, were mere civil servants, unable and unwilling to continue the older traditions.

The colonial economy

Under the monarchy, the economy of Myanmar had been one of redistribution, a concept embedded in local society, religion, and politics. Prices of the most important commodities were set by the state, and in general the mechanism of supply and demand was relatively unimportant. Agrarian self-sufficiency was vital, while trade was only of secondary importance. The British impact on this system proved disastrous, as Burma’s economy became part of the vast export-oriented enterprise of western colonialism. With the British—rather than the people of Burma—as the intended beneficiaries of the new economy, the traditional Burmese economic system collapsed.

The British dream of a golden road to China through Burma could not be realized, but the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 created a much higher international demand for Burma’s rice than had previously existed. The Irrawaddy delta was swiftly cleared of its mangrove forests and in a matter of decades became covered with rice fields. The area of productive rice fields in Lower Burma rose from approximately 60,000 acres (24,000 hectares) to nearly 10,000,000 acres (4,000,000 hectares) between the mid-19th century and the outbreak of World War II, while the price of rice increased rapidly and continuously until the Great Depression of the 1930s. This tremendous increase in production created a significant shift in population from the northern heartland to the delta, shifting as well the basis of wealth and power.

In order to prepare the land for cultivation, however, the farmers had to borrow capital from Indian moneylenders from Madras (Chennai) at exorbitant interest rates. The British banks would not grant mortgage loans on rice land, and the British government had no policy for establishing land-mortgage banks or for making agricultural loans. Prevailing prices were high in the international market, but the local price was kept down by a handful of British firms that controlled wholesale trade and by Indian and Chinese merchants who controlled retail trade. With land values and rice prices soaring, the Indian moneylenders foreclosed mortgages at the earliest opportunity, especially when the Great Depression disrupted trade.

The dispossessed farmers could not find employment even on their lost lands because, with their higher standard of living, they could not compete with the thousands of Indian labourers who went to Burma. Burmese villagers, unemployed and lost in a disintegrating society, sometimes took to petty theft and robbery and were soon characterized by the British as lazy and undisciplined. The level of dysfunction in Burmese society was revealed by the dramatic rise in homicides.

Thus, although the Burmese economy and transportation infrastructure developed rapidly from 1890 to 1900, the majority of Burmese people did not benefit from it. A railway had been built through the entire valley of the Irrawaddy, and hundreds of steamboats plied the length of the river, but the railway and the boats belonged to British companies. Roads had been built by the government, but they were meant for the swift transport of troops. A British company worked the ruby mines until they became nearly exhausted. The extraction of petroleum and timber was monopolized by two British firms. The balance of trade was always in favour of Burma, but that meant little to Burmese people or society.

The emergence of nationalism

Those Burmese who attended the new schools established by the colonial government or by missionaries managed to gain admission to the clerical grades of government service, but even in those lower grades they encountered competition from Indians. Because science courses were not available, the professions of engineering and medicine were closed to the Burmese. Those who advanced to the government liberal arts college at Rangoon (Yangon) entered the middle grades of the civil service, while a few went on to London to study law. When these young barristers returned to Burma, they were looked upon by the people as their new leaders. Their sojourn in the liberal atmosphere of London had convinced these new leaders that some measure of political independence could be regained by negotiation.

The new leaders first turned their attention to the national religion, culture, and education. In 1906 they founded the Young Men’s Buddhist Association (YMBA) and through it began establishing a number of schools supported by private donations and government grants-in-aid (the YMBA was not antigovernment). Three years later the British, attempting to pacify the Indian National Congress (a broadly based and increasingly nationalist political party in India), introduced some constitutional reforms in India. Only a few minor changes were made in the Burmese constitution, but these confirmed the young leaders’ faith in British liberalism. In 1920, however, when it was learned that Burma would be excluded from new reforms introduced in India, the barristers led the people in a countrywide protest, which involved a boycott of British goods.

Also in 1920 Rangoon College was raised to the status of a full university by the University Act. However, because the accompanying changes in the school’s administration and curriculum were viewed as elitist and exclusionary of the Burmese population, its students went on strike. Younger schoolchildren followed suit, and the general public and the Buddhist clergy gave full support to the movement. The strikers camped in the courtyards of monasteries, reviving memories of days when education was the concern of the monks. The University Act eventually was amended and the strike settled, but many strikers initially refused to go back to mission and government schools. The YMBA schools, now calling themselves “national” schools, opened their doors to the strikers.

Constitutional reforms were finally granted in 1923, but the delay had split the leaders, some of whom, like the masses, were beginning to doubt whether political freedom could be attained by peaceful protest. At the University of Rangoon itself, students began to resent their British professors. A radical student group began organizing protests, which came to be known as the Thakin movement. The name for this movement was purposely ironic: the Burmese word thakin (“master”) was the term that the Burmese were required to use when addressing the British.

Late in 1930 Burmese peasants, under the leadership of Saya San, rose in rebellion. Armed only with swords and sticks, they resisted British and Indian troops for two years. The young Thakins, though not involved in the rebellion, won the trust of the villagers and emerged as leaders in place of the British-educated Burmese elite. In 1936 university students again went on strike, and two of their leaders, Thakin Nu (later called U Nu) and Aung San, joined the Thakin movement. In 1937 the British government separated Burma from India and granted it its own constitution, independent of that of India; the masses interpreted this as proof that the British planned to exclude Burma from the next phase of Indian reform.

World War II and after

When World War II erupted in Europe in 1939, the Burmese leaders wanted to bargain with the government before giving their support to the British. A warrant was issued for the arrest of Aung San, but he escaped to China, where he attempted to solicit support from radical groups. Assistance came instead from the Japanese government. Aung San returned to Burma in secret, recruited 29 young men, and took them to Japan, where these “Thirty Comrades” (including Ne Win, who later became head of state) received military training. The Japanese promised independence for Burma; hence, when Japanese troops reached Bangkok (Thailand) in December 1941, Aung San announced the formation of the Burma Independence Army (BIA). The Japanese advanced into Burma and by the end of 1942 had occupied the country. They subsequently disbanded the BIA and formed a smaller Burma Defense Army, with Aung San still as commander. Meanwhile, Thailand was given territory in the Shan states for its support of Japan’s wartime efforts; those lands were returned to Burma in the postwar period, however.

Ba Maw, the first prime minister under the 1937 constitution and later the leader of the opposition, was appointed head of state by the Japanese, with a cabinet including Aung San and Thakin Nu. In 1943, when the tide of battle started to turn against them, the Japanese declared Burma a fully sovereign state. The Burmese government, however, was still a mere facade, with the Japanese army ruling. Meanwhile, Aung San had contacted Lord Louis Mountbatten, the Allied commander in Southeast Asia, as early as October 1943 to offer his cooperation, and in March 1945 Aung San and his army—renamed the Burma National Army (BNA)—joined the British side.

During the war Aung San and the Thakins formed a coalition of political parties called the Anti-Fascist Organization—renamed the Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League (AFPFL) after the war—which had wide popular support. After the defeat of the Japanese in Burma in May 1945, the British military administration and members of the prewar government who had returned from exile demanded that Aung San be tried as a traitor. Mountbatten, however, recognized the extent of Aung San’s hold on the BNA and on the general populace, and he hastily sent the more conciliatory Sir Hubert Rance to head the administration. Rance regained for the British the trust of Aung San and the general public. When the war ended, the military administration was withdrawn, and Rance was replaced by the former civilian governor, who formed a cabinet consisting of older and more conservative politicians. The new administration arrested Aung San and charged him with treason. Surprised and angered, the Burmese people prepared for rebellion, but the British government in London wisely reinstated Rance, who had proven himself a sensitive and successful administrator in Burma, as governor.

Rance formed a new cabinet, including Aung San, and discussions for a peaceful transfer of power began. These were concluded in London in January 1947, when the British agreed to Burma’s independence. By June the Burmese had decided to leave the British Commonwealth of Nations.

The communist and conservative wings of the AFPFL were dissatisfied with the agreement. The communists broke away and went underground, and the conservatives went into opposition. In July Aung San and most members of his cabinet were assassinated by gunmen sent by U Saw, a former prime minister and now a conservative. Rance asked Thakin Nu to form a new cabinet. A new constitution was written, and on Jan. 4, 1948, Burma became a sovereign, independent republic.

Since independence

The unsettled early years, 1948–62

With its economy shattered and its towns and villages destroyed during the war, Burma needed peace. A foreign policy of neutrality was decided upon, but, because of internal strife, no peace resulted. The communists were the first insurgents, followed by some of Aung San’s veterans and then the Karen, the only ethnic minority on the plains. The other minorities—Chin, Kachin, and Shan—who had been ruled separately by the British but who had enthusiastically joined the union, stood firm in support of the government.

At the United Nations, Burma endeavoured to show impartiality. It was one of the first countries to recognize Israel, as well as the People’s Republic of China. Meanwhile, a division of Chinese Nationalist troops occupied parts of the Shan Plateau after their defeat by the Chinese communists in 1949. Because of the general support given to Nationalist China (Taiwan) by the United States, Burma stopped accepting U.S. aid and rejected all other foreign aid.

By 1958 Burma was well on the road to internal peace and economic recovery, but the ruling AFPFL had become divided by personal quarrels between U Nu (formerly called Thakin Nu) and his closest associates. Amid rumours of a military takeover, U Nu invited the army chief of staff, Ne Win—who had been a Thakin, one of the Thirty Comrades, and Aung San’s second in command—to assume the premiership. This move sometimes has been called a “constitutional coup.” Ne Win established internal security, stabilized the military situation, and prepared the country for general elections, which took place in February 1960. U Nu was returned to office with an absolute majority.

The socialist state, 1962–88

In March 1962, however, Ne Win led a military coup and arrested U Nu, the chief justice, and several cabinet ministers. He justified his actions as a means of keeping the union from disintegrating. Suspending the 1947 constitution, which had been in effect since independence, he ruled the country with a Revolutionary Council consisting of senior military officers. Ne Win’s stated purpose was to make Burma a truly socialist state. A military-controlled one-party (Burma Socialist Programme Party [BSPP]) system was established. In April 1972 Ne Win and other members of the Revolutionary Council retired from the army, but they retained their positions of power in the BSPP.

Land had been nationalized under U Nu’s administration, and much of the country’s commerce and industry was nationalized under Ne Win. Ultimately, Ne Win implemented a type of command economy—a system whereby the means of production are publicly owned and economic activity is controlled by the government—that was in some ways reminiscent of the redistributive economy of the monarchy. These measures did not improve the economy, however, particularly as investment in agriculture generally was sacrificed in favour of industrial growth, and as the military replaced civilians in key administrative positions.

Ne Win had promised a new constitution, and in September 1971 representatives of the party’s central committee, of the country’s various ethnic groups, and of other interest groups were appointed to draft a document. A referendum to ratify the new constitution was held in December 1973, with more than 90 percent of eligible voters signifying approval, and the constitution was promulgated in January 1974. Elections to the People’s Assembly (Pyithu Hluttaw)—the supreme legislative, executive, and judicial authority—and to local People’s Councils were held early in 1974; the new government took office in March with Ne Win as president.

After the establishment of the new political organization, Burma’s economy grew steadily at a moderate pace. A notable policy change was a partial relaxation of the ban on foreign financial aid, and considerable funding was received from the Asian Development Bank and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (part of the World Bank), as well as from Japan. By the early 1980s, however, growth increasingly was being hindered by mounting trade deficits caused largely by falling commodity export prices, the increasing costs of imports, and rising external debt payments. A series of economic reforms proposed in 1987–88 were intended to reverse the socialist policies enacted in the early 1960s. Chief among these were the active encouragement of foreign investment and a considerable liberalization of foreign trade.

Communist and ethnic insurgencies had expanded in the eastern and northern parts of the country throughout the BSPP period. In May 1980 Ne Win offered full amnesty to all political insurgents inside or outside Burma who reported to authorities within a 90-day period. Most notable among those accepting was U Nu, who, after having gone into exile in India in 1969, returned to enter a Buddhist monastery. Most insurgents, however, chose to continue opposing the government, and repeated attempts by government troops to suppress them met with only limited success. After four decades, insurgency had become a way of life.

Myanmar since 1988

Ne Win retired as president and chairman of the Council of State in November 1981 but remained in power until July 1988, when he resigned as chairman of the BSPP amid violent protests. Student and worker unrest had erupted periodically throughout the 1980s, but the intensity of the protests in the summer of 1988 made it seem as if the country were on the verge of revolution. On September 18 the armed forces, led by Gen. Saw Maung, seized control of the government. The military moved to suppress the demonstrations, and thousands of unarmed protesters were killed. Martial law was imposed over most of the country, and constitutional government was replaced by a new military body called the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC). Saw Maung became chairman of the SLORC as well as prime minister.

The SLORC changed the name of the country to Myanmar, implemented the economic reforms drafted by the previous government, and called for election of a new legislature and revision of the 1974 constitution. In May 1990 Myanmar held its first multiparty elections in 30 years. Of the dozens of parties that participated, the two most important were the government’s National Unity Party (NUP), successor to the BSPP, and an opposition coalition called the National League for Democracy (NLD). The result was a landslide victory for the opposition NLD, which won some four-fifths of the seats.

The SLORC, however, would not permit the legislature—which it now declared to be a constituent assembly tasked with drafting a new constitution—to convene. Moreover, the military regime did not release the NLD’s leaders, Tin U, a former general and colleague of Ne Win, and Aung San Suu Kyi, the daughter of the nationalist leader Aung San, both of whom had been under house arrest since July 1989; another leader, Sein Win, remained in exile in the West. International condemnation of the military regime was strong and widespread, both for its bloody repression of the demonstrations in 1988 and for its actions in connection with the 1990 elections. Worldwide attention continued to be focused on Myanmar after Aung San Suu Kyi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991. (She remained under house arrest until 1995 and thereafter was detained periodically.) In April 1992 Saw Maung was reported to be in poor health and was replaced as chairman of the SLORC and as prime minister by Gen. Than Shwe.

Throughout the 1990s, the military solidified its political and economic hold of the country. In 1993 the SLORC appointed a new National Convention to formulate a constitution that would give the military control of the reorganized state, but by 1996 the convention had failed to complete its task. It did not convene again until 2004 and then met intermittently for nearly four more years before producing a draft constitution. Also in 1993 the military government sought to ensure its continued support by forming a new social organization, the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA), the aims of which paralleled those of the SLORC. By the early 21st century, more than one-fifth of the country’s population belonged to the organization. To guarantee its control of the economy in the event that it relinquished titular power, the military also formed two conglomerates, comprising various domestic businesses and joint ventures with foreign firms. The military itself more than doubled in troop strength between 1988 and 2000; moreover, the SLORC initiated a variety of cease-fires with most ethnic insurgent groups, thus giving the government greater control over peripheral areas while increasing border trade. In 1997 the military revamped the organizational structure of its ruling body and changed its name from the SLORC to the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC).

The political stalemate carried over into the 21st century, with the SPDC continuing to harass the NLD and the military maintaining stringent control. Calling on the SPDC to honour the results of the 1990 elections, the United States invoked economic sanctions against Myanmar in 1997 and restricted contact between the two countries. The European Union (EU) subsequently restricted trade and interaction with the SPDC, and the United Nations continued to condemn human rights violations and forced-labour practices in Myanmar. Late in 2000 the SPDC initiated secret talks with Aung San Suu Kyi (during another period of house arrest), and in 2001 it released approximately 200 political prisoners, evidently as a result of its negotiations with her. The potential for further democratic advancement emerged when Gen. Khin Nyunt was named prime minister in 2003. He promised to usher the country toward a new constitution and free elections, but his rule was cut short by allegations of corruption. In late 2004 he too was placed under house arrest and was replaced by Gen. Soe Win.

After decades of self-imposed isolation and international neglect, Myanmar nevertheless assumed greater strategic and economic importance in the Asian region in the years leading up to the 21st century. The migration of more than one million Chinese into Myanmar, massive Chinese support for the SLORC (and, later, the SPDC) in the form of military equipment and assistance in infrastructure development, and the ability of the Chinese to open trade through Myanmar to the Bay of Bengal concerned the Indian government. In an effort to lessen Chinese influence, India shifted its policy from opposing the SLORC to supporting it. In 1997 Myanmar was admitted into the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), a group that tacitly sought to strengthen economic and political conditions within Myanmar and also to curb Chinese influence.

Despite its increased global interaction since 2000, Myanmar remained hampered by international sanctions—including intensified U.S. and EU sanctions in 2003 after the SPDC again detained Aung San Suu Kyi. It was clear that Myanmar’s prospects for further economic growth and acceptance by the international community were contingent on democratic progress and an improved human rights record. When in September 2007 the monastic community staged a large-scale demonstration calling for democratic reforms, the harsh response from the military drew widespread international criticism.

In the wake of this unrest, the National Convention finally approved a draft of a new constitution in early 2008 that was to be put to a public referendum in May. However, the referendum process was disrupted by natural disaster. On May 3–4 a powerful cyclone (Nargis) struck the Irrawaddy delta region of south-central Myanmar, obliterating villages and killing some 138,000 people (the total including tens of thousands listed as missing and presumed dead). The government’s failure to provide relief quickly at the outset of the disaster and its unwillingness to accept foreign aid or to grant entrance to foreign relief workers further increased the death toll caused by disease and elicited harsh criticism from the international community.

The new constitution was ratified in late May 2008, although outside observers were highly skeptical of the referendum process itself (particularly the reported results from regions devastated by the cyclone). The document was to take effect after the election of a new bicameral legislature, which eventually was scheduled for November 2010. Provisions in the constitution ensured that the military would have a leading role in future governments in Myanmar, notably that one-fourth of the members of each legislative chamber would be appointed by the military leadership.

In preparation for the parliamentary elections, a series of election reform laws were enacted in March 2010. One of them officially annulled the results of the 1990 election, while two others stipulated that persons married to foreign nationals or convicted of crimes were barred from participating in the election. The effect of these latter two laws was to disqualify Aung San Suu Kyi, who was married to a British citizen and in 2009 had been convicted of violating the terms of her house arrest (an uninvited intruder had entered her compound in Yangon) and sentenced to an additional 18 months of house arrest. In addition, political parties were required to reregister or they would be disbanded. Since this would obligate the NLD to accept the annulment of the 1990 election as well as to expel Aung San Suu Kyi and other party leaders from its ranks, the party chose not to register and thus was forced to dissolve in May.

Some three dozen parties did register for the elections, including the USDA, which USDA—which renamed itself the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), and —and one created by a faction of former NLD members. In addition, several high-ranking generals in the government resigned their military commissions to run as civilian candidates in the NUP. The elections were for both the national legislature and local assemblies, and the USDP and NUP, the two government parties, fielded at least one candidate between them (and typically one each) for every race. The much smaller opposition parties were able to put forward only a fraction of the number of candidates, meaning that in most races the government nominees ran unopposed. The result of the polling, held in early November, was an expected overwhelming victory for USDP and NUP candidates. However, many opposition parties claimed voter fraud by the government. In addition, with the notable exception of China, most international observers, including the United Nations, considered the election unfair and merely a means by which the ruling junta sought to legitimize its power. Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house arrest six days after the election and vowed to continue her opposition to military rule.